[ox-en] Re: Movement and Free Software and/vs. Open Source
- From: Stefan Seefeld <seefeld sympatico.ca>
- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:51:09 -0500
Stefan Merten wrote:
Hi StefanS and all!
I'm going to separate this into sub-threads.
That's a good idea.
2 weeks (17 days) ago Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Well, at this time I'd even be reluctant to speak of a 'Free Software Movement'
as a single homogenous body, with consistent goals. And replacing 'Free Software'
by 'Open Source' doesn't make it better.
Instead, one should realize that there are many different 'players' and 'stakeholders'
involved, often with partially contradicting, but luckily also overlapping interests.
Well, IMHO that's perfectly the definition of a movement. All this
applies to well-known movements. Look at movements like the left
movement, the piece movement, attac or the like. Even the early
capitalist movement was full of contradictions but yet it was able to
overcome a model of society. Movements are heterogenous and even
contradictory by definition. Yet there is some common denominator you
can extract from this heterogeneity. I think this is important to do
because this is the key to understand these phenomenons.
Insofar I agree with you that there actually are a lot of differences.
Insofar it is probably always possible to find a counter example for
everything. Would you agree with me that it makes sense to check for
the common denominators? Personally I think the common denominators
can only be found when looking at things in a more statistical way.
The whole FS vs. OSS discussion is a hint at that. (And I do believe it is meaningful
to discuss the difference between Free and Open, as these terms are used here, often
polemically.)
Certainly true. I'd say that these are two currents in one movement.
And in some respect well distinguishable currents.
That all depends on how you define 'Movement'. Without wanting to go
into (yet another) discussion about terminology, let me just say that
I find it not particularly meaningful to talk about 'Movement' here
because to me the term implies shared (conscious) goals, which, I think,
don't play a significant role here.
FS has become a *means* for many, not a goal in itself.
For avoidance of doubt: If there was a movement, I would certainly count
myself in. However, for many (and possibly most), this all is just a means,
not a goal in itself, so I'm not sure how useful it is to qualify it as
a Movement.
On the other hand, for the whole Keimform discussion (sorry, what's the
proper term in English for that ?), I think it is more important to
realize that this all takes place even without a coherent goal.
(Thus my interest in the question of how companies as diverse as IBM, Google,
Redhat, etc., all contribute to this process, even if some people would rather
prefer to disqualify them on moral grounds.)
Did you read Steven Weber's book I recently posted a long recension
for? I'd be very interested in your opinion on his thoughts.
No, I haven't.
What we seem to be discussing here, and what all those projects thus have in
common, is that the result of the work is Free Software, i.e. the product is
freely distributable (where Free is defined in roughly the terms as discussed
at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).
This is certainly the biggest common denominator.
Yesterday Stefan Seefeld wrote:
I also suggested (in a different mail, I believe) to distinguish between
'Free Software' and 'Open Source', not on ideological grounds, but to
be able to differentiate the various aspects that play a role here.
Can you give us an idea what you are thinking how this can be
characterized?
Well, Free Software is well defined on the GNU website, and I would call the
Free Software Movement the community of people who actively and consciously
work in that spirit for that goal, as opposed to people for whom this is a mere
side-effect.
On the other hand, Open Source seems to refer to a particular development process.
I have seen companies produce Free Software inhouse, without any transparency,
and then publishing the result under the GPL. I would certainly not qualify that
as Open Source, yet it generates Free Software.
(...and there are many shades between these extremes.)
For example, Free Software as a legal framework doesn't imply any particular
Relations or Mode of Production. However, it is a requirement for Open Source
Software (as a process) to happen.
To me this is an open question. In theory I'd agree with you but what
we can see in practice is that this legal framework seems to have some
consequences for the way projects are done.
It certainly has consequences as a catalysator. And, in the result, it may
well historically be seen as something that is at the core of a big economical
(r)evolution.
But in itself it doesn't enforce any particular development process.
Best regards,
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de